BBC, Opening Ceremonies, and Ticket Backlash

Britain's Tour de France winner Bradley Wiggins (R) in 2012 Olympic Men's Cycling.

The BBC has had great coverage of Olympic events. After attending the men's road cycling race on Saturday, July 28, we returned home to watch Olympic coverage on the BBC until midnight. Two aspects of BBC coverage really impressed me. First, the announcers did not yap continually and that was wonderful! Second, there were few if any breaks for commercials. [I discovered later that the reason for an absence of commercials was that people are charged 145 pounds per year for licensing fees. It might well be worth it as I think about it!]. Unlike NBC which may have 7 minutes of coverage followed by 3-5 minutes of commercials, there was no need to flip around the channels since there was constant action shown on BBC. This allowed the announcers to include coverage of a greater variety of sports, while also going into depth about who medalled in events of special interest.

I especially enjoyed watching the coverage of Opening ceremonies in England with my friend from High School, Laura Stewart, now married to a native Londoner, Mark Bradshaw. Their insights gave me a greater appreciation of the meanings of various aspects of the presentation that began with a panorama of the English countryside (which I had just seen on my flight into England the night before), followed by an enactment of changes that occurred as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Of course, the scene with "Mr. Bean" took little explanation and was apparently John McEnroe's favorite part of the Opening ceremonies. Mine was probably the scenario with the Queen, especially since I got to pose for a photograph with her in Wimbledon Village the next day:-)

The fireworks and torch at the end were magnificent. I'm not sure what it would have cost to attend the Opening Ceremonies, but I'm sure it would have been far too expensive for me to afford to have been there. Which brings me to my next point... the (un)availability of tickets.
Tickets were especially difficult to find before coming to the Olympics - which discouraged many from making plans to attend the Olympics. Once here, I thought it might be easier to obtain tickets, only to find that there were few options available even for Londoners. It came as a surprise then to see so many unfilled seats at various venues, especially Wimbledon. Apparently I was not alone in making that observation, because several articles have appeared citing a ticket backlash amongst British fans. I can certainly understand why they were upset. Initially, Sebastian Coe (who was in charge of the organizing committee) explained that many empty seats (on Saturday) may have belonged to sponsors or family members of Olympians. He speculated that perhaps the lateness of the Opening Ceremonies may have accounted for many not showing up for early events. Yet, when huge chunks of empty seats remained open on Sunday, the backlash intensified, as reflected by the above article. Officials have promised to fill the seats in the remaining days. But what is the plan to do that?

Here are some of my suggestions: 1. Why not use seat fillers? At the Academy Awards, seat fillers are used to replace people who leave to use the restroom. In this case, fans who might have to wait in a queue would be more than happy to watch tennis - even at a reduced price - until or if the ticket holder showed up for their seats. And if that person showed up, why not let the seat holder find another seat nearby? A similar system was used at the Australian Open (in tennis) and seemed to work well. 2. One problem with using seat fillers is that those who paid exorbitant rates for tickets might be upset if newbies took nearby seats at a reduced rate. However, what if all tickets were offered at the same price? Again, at the Australian Open, all seats cost the same, so it wouldn't matter if someone seated in the last row got a chance to move down to the first row before allowing those who bought reduced rate tickets to fill in the remaining seats. 3. Wimbledon offers a solution at its grand slam by allowing those with tickets to turn in their stubs after attending so that waiting fans can re-purchase them (again, at a reduced rate) to re-enter and take over seats for remaining matches. The Australian Open had a similar policy and it kept people circulating into the more prestigious seats. 4. Both Wimbledon and the Australian Open also attract swarms of people who buy grounds passes to walk around to various courts. Many of them would more than likely be willing to stand in a queue if they knew they might have a chance to move into more attractive seats - especially on the covered Center Court. When the only court that is covered remains unfilled during rain delays, there should be no excuse for empty seats, especially when there are likely to be literally thousands of people who would be ecstatic to occupy those seats - if only for a brief time. Perhaps we need an "Occupy the Olympics" Movement here!

"Say it ain't so, Muffet!"

I missed the press conference after Baylor's big win over Notre Dame in the NCAA Championship Basketball game. But it did not take long for me to hear about this 8-second clip in which ND Coach Muffet McGraw said that Brittney Griner was like a "guy playing with women." Afterwards, Christine Brennan tweeted that she "Just asked #Baylor coach Kim Mulkey about McGraw 'guy playing w/women" #Griner quote. She strongly said she also takes it as a compliment."

Coach Mulkey may have taken it as a compliment after winning the national championship, but according to an article on ESPN, she has been irked by taunts, insults, and criticisms of Griner that have been posted on social media for weeks. Many of those posts on message boards suggest that because Brittney dunks, she must be a man. Ironically, one of the biggest criticisms of women's basketball is that women don't dunk, so it's not as exciting to watch. Despite Griner's ability to dunk, Coach Mulkey has acknowledged her reluctance to do so because of all the criticism she has received.

Criticisms that have been made about Brittney Griner illustrate what Mike Messner (1988) meant when he wrote it was "a double-edged sword" to say that a woman plays like a man. Messner explained that on the surface it may be "a compliment to an individual woman's skills, but it also suggests that since she is so good, she must not be a true woman after all" (p. 205). In many of the comments that I have observed on social media I have noticed that people suggest - in not so flattering terms - that if Brittney can dunk, then maybe she is "really a man."

I began to notice such commentary when Baylor played in the first round of the NCAA tournament at BGSU. I was thrilled to see her play, and excited to see her dunk in practice (below)!

Later, it was fun to see her first two dunks of the season in Baylor's second round game against Florida! As exciting as it was to see, I was troubled to read the insensitive remarks that flooded social media and even some of the blogs that students were writing in my classes. If I don't want to be bothered by the comments on social media, I could just do what Brittney does - according to the ESPN article - and that is to ignore it. But as an educator, I feel that I need to take this opportunity to educate. That task becomes more difficult when someone who coaches a team in the NCAA National Championships makes the kind of comment that fuels further disrespectful commentary. I have to agree with another Twitter post that Christine Brennan wrote that said: "Even though #Griner and Mulkey are taking the high road re: McGraw comment, why in the world did she say it that way?"

I wonder the same thing!

In Response to Trayvon Martin's Death: Psychologists for Social Responsibility

My previous blog entry features a journal that was written by a student in one of my classes. After sharing the entry with a friend (and member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility), she forwarded the following letter that has already been sent to the Attorneys General of the United States and Florida. I am posting this letter with her permission.   

March 20, 2012

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

Office of the Attorney General

The United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20530-001

Attorney General Pam Bondi

Florida Office of the Attorney General

State of Florida

The Capitol PL-01

Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1050

Dear Attorneys General Holder and Bondi:

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) joins other human rights groups in calling for further investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012.  George Zimmerman, the man who admits to killing Trayvon, remains free almost one month later. We believe the death of Trayvon has not been thoroughly investigated, denying Trayvon’s family, the community of Sanford and indeed our entire society a sense of true justice.

As an organization of psychologists and other mental health professionals we are concerned about the loss Trayvon’s family and community are enduring and the ways in which the justice system is failing them. We believe the death of Trayvon and the reactions of the Sanford Police Department to this killing have broad psychosocial impacts because they exemplify the terror and trauma that racism inflicts on many Americans today.

According to the FBI, the single largest motivator (nearly 50%) of hate crimes in the United States is racial bias, with anti-black bias accounting for 70% of offenses (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-hate-crime-statistics). On the 911 calls from February 26, 2012 we hear Zimmerman criminalizing Trayvon as a “black” man. These recordings reveal how racism may have played a role in Zimmerman’s later actions, motivating Zimmerman to use deadly force despite orders from the 911 police to stand down.

The Sanford police have so far failed to arrest Zimmerman, who claims he shot Trayvon in self-defense, despite evidence in the public domain that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon. The media also reports that other African American crime victims have felt betrayed by the Sanford police, who have been slow to press criminal charges in the past when victims are people of color. It is no wonder that public outrage includes the accusation that racism has been normalized and institutionalized in the Sanford Police Department.

The combined effects of this tragic killing and the failure of the justice system to act swiftly allows for questions regarding the permissibility of violence in our culture. The permission to stalk another human and kill that person because of “suspicions” based, at least in part, on the person’s race leaves a chilling effect on those of us who are concerned with human rights for all. Anthony Marsella, past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center and past president of PsySR, says, “If there is any meaning to come from the killing of yet one more Black man, one more repetition of a killing that has crossed centuries and place, let it be that this evil is confronted in all its forms across our land.” It is time for national dialog on the lingering persistence of racism.

We urge you to ensure a thorough investigation into the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. At this point in time, we remain unconvinced that justice has been served, that Trayvon’s death was in any way justified, and that racism was not a factor in Trayvon’s death. 

Sincerely,

Psychologists for Social Responsibility

Trayvon Martin: A Student's Reflection

I am posting the following journal entry that was written by a student in one of my classes. I asked for her permission to post this blog entry anonymously. She agreed... What would you say to her?
[Note: I added the photo of Trayvon].

      I am writing this journal out because over the past couple of weeks my heart has really been breaking as I learn more and more about the Trayvon Martin case. I am troubled at the fact that a man could kill a young person and yet be free even after admitting he had killed the young man. There is plenty of evidence that Zimmerman had chased this kid down and killed him for no reason. The police calls, Zimmerman's history, the phone calls Trayvon made to his girlfriend before he was killed. Why has he not been arrested, charged, caught? I feel that this opens the door for more racist people to target people they don't like and get away with it. I'm writing this journal out of frustration.

     I'm frustrated because all of my life I go to history classes that have only taught me about the enslavement, abuse, and deaths of people of similar skin color to me. I learn how my people have always been oppressed and have always been given the lower hand and have to fight continuously to get somewhere in life. I have to go to extra events, or read about how great my people really are as far as inventions and such. My people have been given up to sports because it was a sense of entertainment for other ethnic people. Other than that, everything is a fight, a struggle, and we get ignored or overlooked when we do not know the system. A white person will Never go to history class and have to view or try to make sense of pictures showing people of their color being hung, skinned, burned, shot, raped, beaten, picking cotton, tortured, chained, sold as property, or separated from their families. I try to tell myself that it is history and that the world has moved on, but such a tragic death like Trayvon's, only makes me wonder what is really going on. Why are people trying to ignore this like it is not a racial issue? Why is the system trying to make this shooting okay? You will NEVER hear of a African American person doing harm to a white person or anyone and getting away with it, or the system trying to deviate from the facts of the case to find a justification for the crime. There is no hope for this world.

Serena doesn’t love tennis: What’s the big deal?

Serena in Brisbane

Now that tennis season is underway in Brisbane, Australia, startling news has emerged from ‘Down Under.’ According to reports, Serena Williams has acknowledged that she “is not passionate about the game she has dominated for so long” (“Serena Williams,” 2012, para. 1). After saying that she doesn’t love tennis today, she admits in the next sentence that she “can’t live without it” and doesn’t “want to go anywhere any time soon” (para. 2). Perhaps that is a relief to the WTA tour administrators who know how much the Women’s Tour relies upon the Williams sisters to headline the sport. There is an obvious drop-off in interest and television ratings when either Venus or Serena misses a tournament. I have even heard tennis analyst Mary Carillo say that Serena Williams is the biggest draw in the game—in men’s and/or women’s tennis! While some would take issue with that assessment, Serena is arguably the most dominant woman player of the past decade.So how do we make sense of this "bombshell" from "down under?"

Agassi acknowledged hating tennis.

When I first heard the reports, it reminded me of Andre Agassi's admission in his autobiography Open that he hated the game he played for so many years. Perhaps the impact of Agassi's admission was diffused by 'other sins' he confessed including that he had taken crystal meth during a particularly difficult time in his life. Even more surprising to students in one of my classes was the admission that he wore a hair weave. Apparently, hating tennis was not the worst sin to confess. In an earlier blog entry, I suggested that it may be difficult for sports' purists to accept that professional athletes might not  love the sport that most would give anything to play for a living. So when we see those who have the opportunity to do so, making millions of dollars on top of that, it is difficult to fathom how they would not love it (as we think we would). I am guessing that the majority of Sport Management students would probably say that their "dream job" is to play their sport professionally.

Many students who choose Sport Management as a major believe that loving sports is a sufficient prerequisite for being hired in the field. As a result, professors in Sport Management repeatedly emphasize that loving sports is not enough. There are so many other areas in which students need to be proficient so as to excel in a Sport Management position (e.g., understanding management principles, accounting, economics, event planning, facilities, legal aspects of sport, psychological and/or sociocultural aspects of the workplace, to name only a few). So perhaps it should come as no surprise that professional athletes also need to be proficient at so many other things besides playing their sport. Not to mention that there are things professional athletes have to do that have nothing to do directly with their sport--I can think of nothing more draining than to have to travel on a regular basis to do my job. Yet professional athletes (tennis players, in particular) must do it globally on a year-round basis.

There is another aspect of Serena's bombshell that intrigues me even more, and that relates to comments by tennis analyst Brad Gilbert that were aired on ESPN. When asked about his response to Serena's statement that she didn't love tennis, Gilbert seemed to downplay the negative impressions so many others had expressed, pointing out that she appeared to be relaxed and was having fun with the press. He noted that she has been saying many of these things for the past 4 or 5 years. The next part of his explanation was especially instructive as I  prepare to teach a class in "Sport & Gender" for the coming semester. Gilbert said that "Serena's this great powerful athlete. But she wants everybody to know deep down she's kind of a woman... she's a girlie-girl. And she likes to get her nails done and she loves fashion. And she's still a great athlete--all in the same sentence." My takeaway from this: there is still dissonance between being an athlete and being a woman. If you are a woman athlete, it is still "contested terrain" (to quote Mike Messner, 1988). Did anyone think Andre Agassi would have been more of a man if he had loved tennis?

Is Serena getting the shaft from Sports' Media?

I wanted to attach the following link to an article that asks if Serena gets the shaft from Sports' Media. http://bleacherreport.com/tb/b7caN

Let me know what you think. I will post my thoughts on this later.

Women's Tennis in the Global Context

In the assigned reading for today's SM 3950 class, Kimmelman (2010) addresses how power has changed the women's game in tennis. Since the women's professional tennis tour began in the early 1970s, one of the main ways it has changed is in who dominates the rankings. In its early days, the top-ranked women were primarily from the U.S: Billie Jean King (see below), Rosie Casals, Nancy Richey; and later, Chris Evert (below King, Tracy Austin, and Jennifer Capriati, to name only a few.

Of course, two of the most popular women players today are from the U.S. (Serena and Venus Williams). But as Kimmelman indicates, with both nearing the end of their careers (Serena is 29 and Venus, 30), the next highest ranked woman player from the U.S. is Bethanie Mattek-Sands (No. 58), who is not exactly a household name. Meanwhile, since the Williams sisters have been out of play (due to injuries) Serena and Venus have now dropped in the rankings, to Nos. 4 and 5, respectively.
With the U.S. no longer dominating the women's (or men's) world rankings, the top 100-ranked women "now come from 33 countries, most of the best from Eastern Europe—countries like Russia, Serbia, Poland and the Czech Republic, nations hungry to nurture the sport" (Kimmelman, 2010, p. 3 of 6).

A second way in which professional women's tennis has changed since it's genesis relates to the age of players. As mentioned in the article, there was a time when 13 year old girls could compete on the women's tour. This practice ended in the early 1990s after Jennifer Capriati burned out and was arrested for possession of marijuana. Many experts felt that her burnout was a direct reflection of starting to play professionally at such a young age. Capriati joined the Women's Tour at age 13, and she already had endorsement deals worth millions of dollars. When the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) decided that there needed to be an age requirement for girls to turn professional, the Age Eligibility Rule was passed. As a result of its passage, girls could play a limited number of tournaments at age 14, but they could not play a full slate of tournaments until they turned 18. ESPN commentator (and Fed Cup Captain) Mary Joe Fernandez believes that Women's Tennis might be missing out on talent as a result of the Age Eligibility Rule.

Another recently passed ruling that effects the state of women's tennis is known as the "Road Map." Passed in 2007 and implemented in 2009, the 'Road Map' is aimed at discouraging player withdrawals and ultimately encouraging more meetings between the top-ranked players in women's tennis. A case-in-point was the recent season-ending tournament in Doha, Qatar, where the top 8 ranked players were invited. Only 2 of the top 8-ranked players were not in attendance (Venus and Serena), which might suggest that the Road Map has been effective in its aim to provide more meetings between the top players. However, another measure of players' success is how many grand slam tournaments they have won. Of the 8 players at Doha, two had won a combined total of 4 Grand Slam titles (Kim Clijsters won 3 U.S. Opens, while Mary Jo Schiavone won the 2010 French Open). However, among players who were missing at Doha (besides Venus and Serena, Maria Sharapova, Justine Henin, and Svetlana Kuznetsova were also absent), those 5 players had won a total of 32 grand slams. By this measure, it appears that the Road Map is not as effective as had been hoped.

On one hand, Professional Women's Tennis has been and remains the best-compensated sport in the world for women. To illustrate, Serena Williams won over $4 million while playing in only 6 tournaments this past year. Plus, she held the No. 1 ranking in the world until October 11, when Caroline Wozniacki took over at No. 1. Meanwhile, Serena, Venus, and Maria Sharapova each earned over $15.5 million in the past year, based on earnings and endorsements. From an economic standpoint, their earnings seem to reflect a sport that is flourishing. Yet, there are those who suggest that women's tennis is in crisis--not only because of the eventual retirements of the Williams sisters, but also due to the continuing injury problems that plague many of the top players. So serious is the problem that it prompted ESPN announcer John McEnroe to suggest that perhaps women's tennis should scale back its schedule, since women may not be tough enough to handle the grueling schedule.

So what do you think? Is there a crisis in tennis? Does that perception have anything to do with a shortage of top-ranked players from the U.S? What do you think about the comments of John McEnroe and/or Mary Joe Fernandez (or others) in this article?